the sociology of crime and deviance idealizes that crime is constructed at a social level. An act is categorized as a crime or not according to how society views it. Social processes define whether an action is criminalized or not; hence, the concept of the social construction of crime (Berger & Luckmann, 1991). The nature of crime is dynamic with the introduction of the new Acts of parliament, which changes the law’s consistency. Due to these recent reforms in the law, many of the actions previously perceived legal are now illegal. Hence, they are criminals. Examples of such amends are the motorcycle helmet made compulsory of 1973, and the rape within marriage made unlawful in 1991 (Hollin, 2013). Social constructionists define crime as objective and vary depending on definition. There is no definition of corruption that is pure without bias, whether its individual, societal, or law. However, a crime defined by statute is highly selected through critical theory, accessed over long periods. The social construction of crime is characterized by gender, ethnicity, and social status.
Crime Construction for the Characters of the Case Study
Crime construction is a process signified by events that lead to a person being considered guilty of a crime. The social structure of crime is a connotation of the people’s idealization and perceptions (Loader & Sparks, 2013). In our case study, crime construction originated from the neighbors who alerted the police. The neighbors of Myles Friends house, where the party was, reported the unexpected movement of people into their neighbor’s home. The first neighbor said he is concerned due to the dress code and walking in groups of young people. The neighbor describes them as “gangs of young people,” wearing hoodies associated with burglars. According to the social construction of crime gangs, young people wearing hoodies are associated with criminals (Berger & Luckmann, 1991). The neighbor was concern that robbers had attacked their neighbors because they did not come out after a while. Another neighbor also observed the unlikely movement of the gangs of young people called the police claiming their neighbor had been attacked and robbed by squatters.
Joey
Joey is a male black Caribbean aged 15, a minor according to the law. Black is associated with crime, violence, and drug use, a socially constructed crime (Newburn, 2013). Joey living in the Eastside Estate known for anti-social behavior, burglaries, and gang violence, makes him a criminal by virtual environmental predisposition. The fights he has been involved in are influenced by his neighborhood and discrimination for being black. Being poor and living in areas with crime makes Joey a more susceptible criminal by the social construction of crime than Zadia or Myles (Newburn, 2016). During the party, after the police’s arrival through the standards set out by society on black people, Joey is subjected to a being searched by virtual of ethnicity. The drugs extracted from his sports jacket incriminate him, although he did not know about them.
Myles framed Joey of drug trafficking by deposits into his jacket. Joey, also due to ignorance, did not care to check if his jacket pockets had anything unusual. Joey was underage, found in possession of illegal drugs, and being black and poor made him more likely to be the criminal than Myles. However, Zadia tried to plead with the police on the ownership of the drugs. She failed because the law requires the offender t be found in possession of the drugs during the arrest regardless of their license (Loader & Sparks, 2013). The people in control of the drugs is the owner of the drugs. Hence, Joey was guilt and had to be arrested. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, Joey was arrested for illegal drugs (Newburn, 2013).
Myles
Myles is male, white, and aged 16, a minor. He lived in a gated community and owned expensive gadgets bought by his parents and some acquired illegal business. He lives a flash lifestyle that is sustained by his drug peddling business. Being white, the social construction of crime does not view him as a criminal. Myles got interested in Zadia, and so did Zadia as she was lonely after the breakup with Joey and her father’s death. When chatting, Myles offered her a couple of marijuana rolls for free. Zadia saw the bunch of drugs, although she accepted the drugs, she did not use them and wasn’t sure she would (Hollin, 2013). Myles was arrested after Zadia told the police that he was the drugs owner and not Joey. Through the rational choice theory, Myles decided to carry drugs to the party and take the opportunity to sell them. It was in the self-control theory concept that he stashed drugs in Joey’s jacket. He was arrested due to a statement for suspicion of intent to supply illegal drugs.
Zadia
Zadia is Asian, aged 18, an adult according to the law. She was given joints of pot by Myles but did not smoke them. During the arrest, according to Misuse of Drug Act 1971 possession of illegal drugs, Zadia was supposed to be arrested for possession of drugs. During the arrest of Joey, she offered to help him as she knew Joey was innocent, and the drugs belonged to Myles (Murphy & Whitty, 2013). She acted in ignorance by giving away Myles and revealing possession of the cannabis joints offered to him by Myles. Although she was not arrested, she was guilty of possession of drugs.
The Dynamics of Gender, Race, and Ethnicity, and Social Class
The dynamics associated with gender, race, ethnicity, and social class play to produce a sense of inequality in the victims’ and offenders’ lives. The self-control theory associates actions of each person as selfish and egocentric (Shiner, 2013). The strain theory associates stress to crime. The disorganization theory and the strain theory operate within similar constraints of pressure and without being of the sober state of mind. Many of the crimes are associated with external or internal factors related to the offender directly. However, some theories lie in social construction, social learning, and social control theory related to rimes being instigated and planned not happening out of emotions or coercion (Berger & Luckmann, 1991).
The different aspects discussed by constructionists control the dynamic nature of gender, race, ethnicity, and social class. Without proper consideration and investigation of every case individually and with a clear conscience, the wrong victimization and arresting of the innocent are very high. Human nature dictates that we do not follow the law without question, morality, and consciousness is critical to enforce the law. Joey would have been set free without charges if the police took the time to access the situation and verify Zadia’s claim.
Case Study Assessment
Zadia owned drugs during the arrests of Myles, Joey, and others at the party. We can credit the lack of arrest regardless of the control of narcotics due to gender. Women are not held suspicious of drug use and trafficking due to their weak gender. If the police were fare with their arrests, they would have arrested Zadia too for drugs as they did to Joey (Berger & Luckmann, 1991). But the discrimination based on race, gender, and social status maltreated Joey.
Myles was the offender, and Joey was the victim. Myles had stashed his drugs in Joey’s jacket to avoid being arrested if the police searched them. However, due to the Myles family’s social status, he was set free without any charges. Myles’ wealthy father was able to talk his son out of expenses due to influence, although he was guilty of the charges against him (Davies et al., 1995). However, Myles was charged because his social class wasn’t influential enough to bail him out of the charges. He was also black and from a minority ethnic background that made him more criminally susceptible to the social construction of crime (Murphy & Whitty, 2013).
This is outrightly unfair to Joey, just because he is not wealthy, he is black, and a male causes the police to turn a deaf ear. The police do not want to hear the part of Joey’s story; they do not want to view the case from the victims’ position but pass judgment based on possession. Although Zadia old them the truth, they did not hear her take even after proving that Myles had given her some cannabis joints. The police did not arrest Zadia, too, regardless of her owning the drugs. They only treated Joey unfairly because he was black, defenseless, poor, and from a different ethnicity (Newburn, 2016).
Understanding Victims in the Case Study
The role of gender, race, ethnicity, and social class played to create an understanding of victims in the case study is very clear. Zadia is a perfect example of a champion of justice. She was adamant to prove Joey’s innocence concerning the arrest of the drugs he did not know (Davies et al., 1995). However, the perpetrators of justice, i.e., the police, could not make the right arrest according to the information presented to them. They are restricted by the law to distinguish the victim from the offender. According to the social construction of crime, the gender and race of Joey were possible for him to be a drug peddler. However, due to Joey’s social status, he could not raise the money enough to raise buy and sell the drugs. On the other hand, Myles had a social class and race advantage (Newburn, 2016). The police did not find him in possession of the drugs, and neither was his social status and raced a question according to the social construction of crime.
Understanding Offenders in the Case Study
The value of crime in society falls on those who are innocent. The offenders, on many occasions, with the knowledge of being guilty is always very cautious. The innocent have nothing to fear and therefore end up acting in ignorance. Joey was innocent of any wrongdoing, but without his knowledge, had possession Myles drugs. The worst scenario is he was arrested for what he had not foreseen and was out of his power to grow to convince the police otherwise—being the offender yet innocent (Newburn, 2016). However, Myles pretended innocent of all charges because his influential father could walk out of the police station without being charged.
Myles knew that he was guilty, and Joey was framed and arrested, but he could not present himself guilty. Joey had no option but to be charged for an offense he had not committed, and over drugs, he did not know their origin and how they got to his jacket. Zadia had tried fighting for Joey’s innocence, but she had no proof beyond the cannabis joints she had (Murphy & Whitty, 2013). She also was at risk of being arrested for illegal drugs in her possession. Zadia had no credible evidence to incriminate Myles, regardless of Myles being the drug peddler; Joey had to carry the burden of drug possession during the arrest.
Minimization of the Discriminatory Effect
The discrimination effect of gender, race, and ethnicity, and social class for the victim and offender can be minimized through education, focus on diversity, writing policies and building teamwork, constantly seeing improvement, and developing effective communication. Education of law enforcers is the key to acquiring knowledge necessary to enlighten any human (Davies et al., 1995). Through education, the police would be able to make the right arrests and evaluate the accused’s mind and weigh their intentions. Joey was innocent, and by scrutiny, listening, investigating, and evaluation, the police would have been able to identify Joey’s innocence and arrest Myles instead (Newburn, 2016).
Focusing on diversity as the strength will highly minimize discrimination effects based on gender, race and ethnicity, and social class. Being different doesn’t specifically mean the person is bad or certain people are more prone to crime due to their color, ethnicity, or race. The embracing of diversity enables people to live in harmony and reduce crime. Writing of policies and building of teamwork is a major effort used in the reduction of discrimination. Law is made from policies that are tried over time and proven effective (Hollin, 2013). Hence, well-developed teamwork on the social construction of crime will create policies that will transform the law enabling it to minimize discrimination.
Improvement and change cannot be averted. Every day there are new emerging issues in criminology and other disciplines. The laws are also being overtaken by times with the emerging trends in technological and internet-based crimes. For the laws to keep track of these changes, they must be willing to be flexible and allow constant improvement. These will help reduce discrimination in crimes and other related areas where the law is rigid and concrete. The final strategy to reduce discrimination of whichever ling ion the criminology sector is through effective communication between the lawmakers, law enforcers, the community, non-governmental, and the government (Davies et al., 1995). Communication will reduce the number of criminal cases associated with social; construction theory reduces cases in court as many of the cases will be solved at the community level and by law enforcement officers. Communication establishes a society that works together to better society and nation through communication (Newburn, 2016).
References
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1991). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge (No. 10). Penguin Uk.
Davies, M et al. (1995) Criminal Justice, an introduction to the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales Longman
Hollin, C. R. (2013). Psychology and crime: An introduction to criminological psychology. Routledge
Newburn, T. (2016). Social disadvantage: Crime and punishment. Social advantages and disadvantages of 322-40.
Loader, I., & Sparks, R. (2013). Public criminology?. Routledge.
Murphy, T., & Whitty, N. (2013). Making history: Academic criminology and human rights. British Journal of Criminology, 53(4), 568-587.
Newburn, T. (2013). Criminology. (2nd edition) London: Routledge.
Shiner, M. (2013). Dubious equality? Drug use and the discovery of gender. Gender and Justice, 15.